help with a paper

[Johnathan54]

I'm in a Philosophy class an my college and I have to write a paper defending Reason as an Epistemological Choice. My other choices were Empiricism, Skepticism, Feminism, Pragmatism and maybe one or 2 others. So far my argument is that Reason is the best choice because in order for anyone to "convert" you, they must appeal to your reason. Can anyone help with some other argument choices? I've only got a little over 1 page now and need 4-5. And I need to defend Reason, not Objectivism. Obj. is more a value based system where as this paper is more about Reason as a means to true Knowledge.

So far in the textbook the main names behind Reason are Socrates and Rene DesCart (not sure on the spelling of either). Mostly I want to be able to defend my position to the attack of the Empiricist as put forth by Locke, Berkley and Hume. The Pragmatists and Skeptics I think I can deal with as well as Feminist Epist.

Any help would be most appreciated!

RK

[D'kian]

So far in the textbook the main names behind Reason are Socrates and Rene DesCart (not sure on the spelling of either).

That's "Descartes."

You should look up Aristotle, too.

[Rockefeller]

The question "Why should man choose reason?" already upholds the validity of reason. Note that the question demands a reason (a "why"). By the same token, if a person reading your paper accepts the validity of your theme ("Why ... reason?"), then the reader has already committed to reason - all you need to do is point this out.

I first came across this kind of argument in this video (at 23:18) by Leonard Peikoff.

[i have never taken a Philosophy class. So my response may be lacking in rigor or precision.]

[phibetakappa]

I need to defend Reason, not Objectivism. Obj. is more a value based system where as this paper is more about Reason as a means to true Knowledge.

Reason is not an end-in-itself. Your lost already.

I've heard at least one prominent O'ist recomend writing college papers drunk, as this mental state most closely approximates the state needed to succeed in one of todays philosophy classes.

Given that you are trying to write a paper with reason cut off from values, i.e., cut off from human beings, sounds like this is your best bet.

Good luck trying to argue "for better" or "for worse" without values.

[RussK]

Reason is not an end-in-itself. Your lost already.

I've heard at least one prominent O'ist recomend writing college papers drunk, as this mental state most closely approximates the state needed to succeed in one of todays philosophy classes.

Given that you are trying to write a paper with reason cut off from values, i.e., cut off from human beings, sounds like this is your best bet.

Good luck trying to argue "for better" or "for worse" without values.

Intro. philosophy courses are definitely a mixed bag of concepts, usually not integrated, but I don't have too much a problem with this. This method can provide a good environment to learn about general philosophical ideas.

Who said to write college papers drunk? Not that I doubt the authenticity of this, but I would love to hear it in its original context, just for entertainment purposes.

[DavidOdden]

Can you define "reason"; and what is its opposite?

On the face of it, the assignment is ridiculous because reason is an abstract thing, and choice pertains to action. Therefore it is meaningless to "choose reason", although par for the course in non-thinking philosophy classes. Whenever you get a lousy assignment with undefined goals and meaningless metaphorical requirements, you should interpret them in the way that favors you. So try expanding on this fact: reason is a tool. For doing what? And then, why are you doing that?

[Johnathan54]

Here is the terms of the paper and the definition of Reason that the book provides.

1) What epistemological theory do you find most defensible and reasonable?

2) Why do you believe this is so? (Remember, “Because I like it” is not a sound justification! What are the strengths of this theory vs. others?) Use references to the ideas/concepts of 3 (no more than 4) philosophers in answering this question. You can use material from some of the philosophers to explain why you discount their thinking. In developing your argument, use your own examples for support, not just those provided by the philosopher.

3) Defend your choice by thoroughly explaining one of the substantial (not a short excerpt) readings in this chapter that supports your choice. Use material and terms from the passage correctly and ethically, depending completely on summary, not quoting, to explain the philosopher’s ideas. In developing your argument, use your own examples for support, not just those provided by the philosopher.

The over view of Rationalism

"Reason is the Primary or Most Superior Source of Knowledge about Reality"

The two opposing sides as I see them are Empiricism ( Senses and experience tells us about reality), and Skepticism ( nothing is real).

I'd love to drink my way through the paper, but unfortunately I can't stand the taste of alcohol or I would! I will point out that the very terms of the paper point to Rationality as the most defensible. Point 3 above I can deal with, but part of my paper will be shooting down the two opposing sides that I stated. That's the part I need some help with.

[bluecherry]

I laughed first when I saw your first post seemed to imply reason as just one option to defend against others and then the first line of the terms of the paper asks which option sounds most "reasonable." XD

Reading the rest of the requirements and options though, I think you've made a small and easy to make, though crucial error. "Rationalism" is not in fact just a name for being rational. Rationalism holds that only deductive arguments should be considered sound and inductive ones are not. This is often painted as opposed to empiricism as you mentioned which does the reverse, holding that only the inductive is a sound way of getting to reliable information and the deductive is not.

How familiar are you with Objectivism anyway? If you were unaware, we here actually contend that both rationalism and empiricism are flawed and paint a false idea that it has to be one or the other, that you can trust only rationality and not information from your senses or vice versa. Empiricism seems to be like the idea that we get knowledge just from existence impressing itself upon us and there's not much for our mind to do otherwise but take it in whereas rationalism seems like the idea that we don't have any starting point from the outside and instead we just try to take thoughts from inside our minds and work building more and more upon those. Objectivism holds that the two things - observation of the outside world via the senses for observation and the use of our minds to further process information - work together for people to gain knowledge of existence. First you gather basic information about reality through observation of the external world through your senses and then from there we apply reason to figure out more meanings and implications of that information we got with our senses.

Here are some excerpts from Rand's writing on a couple related topics (not every quoted section in each subject may be relevant to the subject at hand though):

Rationalism Vs. Empiricism

Reason (<-- What we mean when we refer to reason)

Objectivity (<-- Objectivity is what Objectivism supports as the way to gain knowledge, how and why both the perceptual/sensory/observational/inductive and conceptual/rational/deductive are reliable and how they work together, as opposed to intrinsicism or subjectivism)

Skepticism (<-- As long as it was brought up that skepticism is one thing you've got to defend your position against, here's some stuff on that)

If you are really unfamiliar though with Objectivism at all, just starting off looking at these excerpts on various topics may still leave you with lots of questions about specific terms used or why Objectivism makes the claims it does on these things. Finding out the answers to these things if you haven't come across them before could take a little while, perhaps more time than you have before the paper is due. If so, well, it's just one paper so just do as well as you can of course, it isn't as if you are expected in this paper to be convincing the world of the one true epistemological position and you can always on your own time later examine the issue more for your own benefit. (I'd recommend if you are unfamiliar with Objectivism checking it out more later. It's a very different philosophy from most of the stuff you are probably used to. )

[DavidOdden]

Glad you cleared that up. Presumably you are not limited to a predefined set of theories that you find the most defensible and reasonable. Rationalism is clearly indefensible as an epistemological theory. Empiricism is closer to defensible. ("Feminism" as an epistemological theory sounds like a joke -- I take it that was a serious option).

What are the goals of an epistemological theory? Clearly, not to make money or to define moral action. At some point you will ground your position on the correspondence theory of truth, thereby concretizing what epistemology is about -- the relationship between a mind and the universe. Rationalism fails because it has no connection the external universe. The weakness of Empiricism is that it does not understand how the relationship between a man's mind and the universe comes about.

I can see why you'd want to drink your way through the assignment. I don't understand your choice of Rationalism as "the best". Everybody loves reason, but reason is just a tool, which has to be used on something. The Rationalists had this crazy idea that you don't need raw materials for creating knowledge.

[Johnathan54]

I don't understand your choice of Rationalism as "the best". Everybody loves reason, but reason is just a tool, which has to be used on something. The Rationalists had this crazy idea that you don't need raw materials for creating knowledge.

Well, considering the alternatives... I have read Atlas, Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness. Also The Sword of Truth series. So I'd say my knowledge of Objectivism and Rationalism is high enough to be dangerous.

As for my mistake, The book we're using has Reason listed under the heading of Rationalism. The First of the Books arguments was Plato and his Allegory of the Cave. One sub-heading is "Plato and the Role of Reason". So any mistakes I make are because of what I am getting from the book.

From what I can tell so far, Feminism Epistemology is about how gender roles shape knowledge. I still have yet to read that section.

Thanks for your help so far!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It's possible we just got bit by the difference between the _conventional_ use of the the term rationalism (advocating reason and rationality) and the Objectivist use, which involves reasoning from abstractions and failing to tie things back to concrete reality. DavidOdden is definitely thinking of the second definition--your book is most likely using the first.

[DavidOdden]

DavidOdden is definitely thinking of the second definition--your book is most likely using the first.

That's an important question to answer. In epistemology, Descartes and Leibniz are typically classed as "Rationalists", and Aristotle and Locke are architypical "Empiricists". However, the empiricist line degenerated into (Pyrrhonic) skepticism. But at the same time, "skepticism" also refers to a "critical scientific view", one demanding proof. So the terminology can be massively confusing. This is why you should largely ignore the "school" labels and instead focus on the specific ideas of particular philosophers. Given that this assignment is being driven by your textbook, if they say that Aristotle is a rationalist, then by George, for the purposes of this class, Aristotle is a rationalist.